A Question for the Calvinist

[prism]

They are predestined because they are the elect.

So election comes before predestination or is that some sort of 'logical order'?

 

[Hazelelponi]

So election comes before predestination or is that some sort of 'logical order'?

We were elected before the foundation of the world.

"even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love" Ephesians 1:4

^^^ That is election.

"Predestined" is the broader concept of God's eternal decree regarding the destiny of individuals

In a sentence it would read, those God elected to salvation are predestined to come to Christ through faith

Hope this helps. Might not be the most perfect wording, just trying to help.

 

[fastfredy0]

So election comes before predestination or is that some sort of 'logical order'?

In Reformed theology, "election" and "predestination" are closely related but not exactly the same. Here's the distinction:

---

1. Election​

• Definition: God's sovereign choice of certain individuals to receive salvation.
• Focus: Primarily on who is chosen for salvation.
• Biblical basis: Passages like Ephesians 1:4-5 ("He chose us in him before the foundation of the world") and Romans 9:11-13.
• Key point: It’s a specific, gracious act of God choosing some sinners to be saved.

---

2. Predestination​

• Definition: God's sovereign plan or decree regarding all things, particularly concerning the eternal destiny of individuals.
• Focus: Broader than election; includes both the elect (to salvation) and the reprobate (to judgment).
• Biblical basis: Romans 8:29-30 (“those whom he foreknew he also predestined…”).
• Key point: It encompasses the whole divine plan, including election, but may also involve God’s ordaining of other events and outcomes, not only salvation.

---

Summary:​

• Election is a subset of predestination.
• All the elect are predestined, but not all who are predestined (in the broad sense) are elect (e.g., Judas was predestined to fulfill a role, but not elect unto salvation).

This distinction is commonly upheld in Reformed confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort.

ChatGPT

 

[Arial]

So election comes before predestination or is that some sort of 'logical order'?

It isn't really logical order as I see it. I believe the elect are created as the elect and being elect is the reason for the predestination. But notice what they are predestined to---- be conformed to the image of Christ ---which means sanctification is also predestined. The elected person's destiny is Christ. It's gonna happen iow.

 

[John Bauer]

Are they elect because they have been predestined or are they predestined to be elect?

✔ The elect are predestined.

The predestined are elected.

So, election comes before predestination or is that some sort of 'logical order'?

It is a logical order. To say the elect are predestined is to assert a logical priority, insofar as election is the context of predestination: God has in mind whom he is predestinating (Rom 8:29-30); i.e., no one is predestined apart from being elected. Election individuates a people ("these, not those"), and predestination appoints that people to a telos ("to be conformed to the image of his Son," v. 29).

 

[prism]

Key point: It’s a specific, gracious act of God choosing some sinners to be saved.

I get that but is His choice arbitrary?

 

[prism]

It isn't really logical order as I see it.

So it happens in the realm of time?, Otherwise, if in eternity, it wouldn't make sense, since there is no 'before' in eternity, except perhaps with the meaning of 'in front of'

 

[prism]

It is a logical order. To say the elect are predestined is to assert a logical priority, insofar as election is the context of predestination: God has in mind whom he is predestinating (Rom 8:29-30); i.e., no one is predestined apart from being elected. Election individuates a people ("these, not those"), and predestination appoints that people to a telos ("to be conformed to the image of his Son," v. 29).

See post #44' @Arial believes it is not. (that sends me back to square one).

 

[John Bauer]

See post #44' @Arial believes it is not. (that sends me back to square one).

That is between you and Arial. She can defend that it is not, I will defend that it is.

 

[Arial]

So it happens in the realm of time?, Otherwise, if in eternity, it wouldn't make sense, since there is no 'before' in eternity, except perhaps with the meaning of 'in front of'

See post #44' @Arial believes it is not. (that sends me back to square one).

If you read how my post #44 was worded and what was said in it in regards to "logical order", and compare the two conclusions in the posts, (mine and @John Bauer), you will see our conclusions do not disagree. The reason one says "it is" and the other says "it isn't", is simply a matter of the inner workings of the individual minds in trying to describe in human terms and from a human perspective (the only one we have) something pertaining to someone who is completely "other" than us.

Our world is linear (past, present, future). God works in our world and we can only see it in the linear boundaries we have been set in. but he himself is not linear. So the question is there a logical order to predestination and election and which comes first, is like a person who lives in a multi dimensional world, asking a person who lives in a two dimensional world (up, down, backward, forward) what is behind them. The answer would be, "Huh?"

It can be put into logical ordering as @John Bauer did. It is the correct way to see it "ordered" logically; if the elect are predestined, then they logically had to be elected in order to be predestined. They could not be predestined and then elected. Unless a person is going to say that God's plan went something like this: "I am going to predestine some people for salvation, and I will decide who at some point after they are born." But that would be in conflict with scriptures that show God does not elect on the basis of anything good or bad about the person.

He creates the elect as the elect for the purpose of giving a people to the Son. All for his glory.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: It’s a specific, gracious act of God choosing some sinners to be saved.

I get that but is His choice arbitrary?

Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Ah, that's a deep question. The foundation of an answer, IMO, is what @Josheb pointed out in a post not long ago in which he said (assuming I recall) that the problem with forming doctrine is that it is often done from an anthropocentric rather than theocentric basis.

The question deals with God and whether he is partial. The following deals with this question:
The love of God is uninfluenced (impassible). By this we mean, there was nothing whatever in the objects of His love to call it into exercise, nothing in the creature to attract or prompt it. God’s love is not regulated by caprice, passion, or sentiment, but by principle. The love which one creature has for another is because of something in the object; but the love of God is free, spontaneous, impartial. The only reason why God loves any is found in His own sovereign will: “The LORD did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the LORD loved you” [Israel] (Deuteronomy 7:7-8). God has loved His people from everlasting, and therefore nothing about the creature can be the cause of what is found in God from eternity. He loves from Himself: “according to His own purpose” (2 Timothy 1:9). “We love him, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). God did not love us because we loved Him, but He loved us before we had a particle of love for Him. Had God loved us in return for ours, then it would not be spontaneous on His part; but because He loved us when we were loveless, it is clear that His love was uninfluenced. Romans 9:11 and though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything either good or bad, so that God’s purpose [His choice, His election] would stand, not because of works [done by either child], but because of [the plan of] Him who calls them,
Since God is impassable -- he cannot be emotionally disturbed -- this means that divine love is not emotional and not the effect of any cause; rather, God’s love is an immutable emotion and impartial volition to favor the morally perfect. A.W. Pink Acts 10:34So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality

 

[Arial]

See post #44' @Arial believes it is not. (that sends me back to square one).

Paul answers your questing beautifully, expressed in a logical order (logic being human reasoning, which we are confined to, but is much larger than that in the economy of God) in Romans 8:29-30.

Foreknew: Choose beforehand. The elect.
Predestined: determine beforehand (that they would be conformed to the image of Christ, that is that they would come to Christ and be sanctified)
Called: Because this is what they were elected for and predestined to, they were called ("My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me." "All that the Father gives me, will come to me.")
Justified:Because they come to Christ in faith, they are justified before God.
Glorified: Though our glorification is future, Paul uses past tense to show the certainty of God's purpose.

Therefore, yes, logically there is an order, and why Paul tells us that because of election, everything else follows, but also exists before it enters time. These are the things predestined to take place because of election.

If you are interested in a complete breakdown of that passage, go to ChatGPT (it is free) and ask it to give a grammatical breakdown of Greek in Romans 8: 29-30)

 

[His clay]

(and I know there are plenty here)

Why can't a person facing Judgment say, "The reason I am being judged to eternal destruction is because you did not ordain/predestine me to eternal life?

I've always wondered about this line of questioning. What about "X" at judgment, doesn't this give people an excuse?

I've wondered about this type of question because it is so utterly bankrupt when given a little thought. Three basic considerations are as follows.

First, the objection suffers from a failure to understand the nature of God in relation to finite, sinful man. Sometimes in Reformed apologetics this distinction is called the Creator/creature distinction. The vast majority of negative criticisms against God fail right at this point. To highlight this distinction and its ramifications I'll start with a few simple comparisons. God has infinite wisdom and knowledge; one human being has very limited, perspectival knowledge that is sinfully corrupted. God is perfect and holy; the human objector is sinful, acting in unbelief, pride, arrogance, self-centeredness, etc. God is completely self-sufficient; the human objector owes his/her life and every moment to God's sustaining hand; all human beings are owned by God.

The list of comparisons could continue, but this brief list is more than enough to dive home the point. What is hope of such a questions against an all-knowing God? Does the objector really think that this objection is somehow going to accomplish anything against God? It's like an infant picking a fight with a navy seal. The objection/question is literally loaded and packed with extreme hubris, for if the objector has really considered God's godness and superiority above the objector, then the question would literally answer itself. The problem with the question/objection is that it suffers from a sinful failure and a theology failure.

Second, the objection failure to understand who is the judge and what the terms for judgement are. Since God is God, and the objector is not, then it follows that the objector/questioner is always on the defense. Human beings will always be the ones giving an account to God; God is never obligated to give an account to sinful people. Good luck trying to reverse those roles in the judgement! lol

The terms of the judgement are outlined in scripture, which is an obvious blind-spot of the objection. No scripture is given to sustain the objection/question. In scripture, we see a revelation. No, this is not the book of Revelation; rather, this is a revelation of the wrath of God in Romans 1. People will be judged in accord with their knowledge of God in relation to their sin. I've spelled this out in another thread, the link presents a more spelled out understanding of Romans 1 (see end of paragraph). We can immediately note the obvious; the objection of the op does nothing to alleviate the reason for their judgement. Even if they were never elect, they will be judged on the basis of their knowledge of God and their sin. The objection of the op is essentially irrelevant in the heavenly court; and though more reasons could be given, one can easily see that the objection will fail.

R

Thread 'What does Romans 1:18-22 mean?'

Apr 27, 2025

I'm getting confused!

• Rescued One
• Replies: 33
• Forum: Arminianism & Calvinism

• 

Third, the objection seems to think that the objector is owed God's grace, which is a contradiction of terms. God never set the preconditions for his judgement to be based upon the necessity of His giving grace prior to judgment. This is just a mistaken theological assumption common to the Arminian side of the fence.

I'll edit this to add this paragraph. Sadly, the Arminian objector has failed to distance himself from the same objection. Since God knows infallibly who will and who will not believe, but He created them anyway, then how is their salvation possible to be anything different than what God knows. One cannot make God's knowledge dependent upon the creature's action without destroying God's self-sufficiency. Thusly, even the Arminian is dealing with people who cannot do otherwise than what God knows.

Conclusion: The objection/question fails at multiple levels. It fails to understand the deep gap between the sinful creature and the infinite, holy God. It fails to understand who is the judge and what the terms of the judgment are. And the objection is built upon bad theology, assuming that God must make salvation possible in order for one to be liable for judgment. As such, I think that the objection/question has no persuasive value and it utterly bankrupt.

 

[His clay]

Sorry everyone. In the past I've proofread my posts before posting, but I failed to do that above. Sadly, I have a ton of typos. Please try to make sense of it anyway. I'm a little out of practice, since I have not posted anything significant in some time. If I have left anything unclear because of the typos, please ask for clarification.

 

[prism]

If you read how my post #44 was worded and what was said in it in regards to "logical order", and compare the two conclusions in the posts, (mine and @John Bauer), you will see our conclusions do not disagree. The reason one says "it is" and the other says "it isn't", is simply a matter of the inner workings of the individual minds in trying to describe in human terms and from a human perspective (the only one we have) something pertaining to someone who is completely "other" than us.

Our world is linear (past, present, future). God works in our world and we can only see it in the linear boundaries we have been set in. but he himself is not linear. So the question is there a logical order to predestination and election and which comes first, is like a person who lives in a multi dimensional world, asking a person who lives in a two dimensional world (up, down, backward, forward) what is behind them. The answer would be, "Huh?"

It can be put into logical ordering as @John Bauer did. It is the correct way to see it "ordered" logically; if the elect are predestined, then they logically had to be elected in order to be predestined. They could not be predestined and then elected. Unless a person is going to say that God's plan went something like this: "I am going to predestine some people for salvation, and I will decide who at some point after they are born." But that would be in conflict with scriptures that show God does not elect on the basis of anything good or bad about the person.

He creates the elect as the elect for the purpose of giving a people to the Son. All for his glory.

So it's true, the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

 

[prism]

Paul answers your questing beautifully, expressed in a logical order (logic being human reasoning, which we are confined to, but is much larger than that in the economy of God) in Romans 8:29-30.

Foreknew: Choose beforehand. The elect.
Predestined: determine beforehand (that they would be conformed to the image of Christ, that is that they would come to Christ and be sanctified)
Called: Because this is what they were elected for and predestined to, they were called ("My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me." "All that the Father gives me, will come to me.")
Justified:Because they come to Christ in faith, they are justified before God.
Glorified: Though our glorification is future, Paul uses past tense to show the certainty of God's purpose.

Therefore, yes, logically there is an order, and why Paul tells us that because of election, everything else follows, but also exists before it enters time. These are the things predestined to take place because of election.

If you are interested in a complete breakdown of that passage, go to ChatGPT (it is free) and ask it to give a grammatical breakdown of Greek in Romans 8: 29-30)

I'm not sure any of you know what logical order means, in relation to God, I sure don't.

 

[Arial]

So it's true, the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

How could it? It can understand what the infinite tells the finite, but that does not begin to paint the whole picture. We take what he reveals by faith and that too is given. It is in our hearts.

For example, we can know that God is a triune being because he reveals that to us in his word, by presenting Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But when it comes to the question "How can that be? How is that possible?" we cannot answer. Yet we believe it.

When Scripture tells us that a man who had been dead and buried for three days, or that that same man was born of a virgin, if we ask those same two questions, we cannot find the answer with our minds, and neither can it be communicated to our finite minds. Our minds cannot contain it. It would be like trying to contain five gallons of water in a tea cup. And yet, we believe.

 

[John Bauer]

I'm not sure any of you know what logical order means, in relation to God, I sure don't.

The latter certainly explains the former.

 

[prism]

The latter certainly explains the former.

Seeing you butted in on this one, so much for your post #49.

 

[John Bauer]

Seeing you butted in on this one, so much for your post #49.

I did not "butt in" because this is a public discussion, not a private one.

And injecting a humorous comment doesn't indicate a change of mind; I still refuse to defend the idea that it's not a logical order, although I reserve the right to comment on any such debate (from the perspective of someone who affirms that it is a logical order).